FORWARD: For those living on the surface of a sphere, ‘gathering’ is, at the same time, ‘scattering’.   If we ‘stand back from visually observing either of these, we understand, instead of EITHER one OR the other wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-TWO, the process of TRANSFORMATION wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE.   GATHERING and SCATTERING, CLUSTERING and DISPERSING are NOT TWO but ONE.  The mountain climber is intrigued by the exhilarating challenge of the climb to the summit and tends to dismiss his descent into valley-dwelling normality.  Experiencing highs and lows is transformative, yet the appreciation of transformation seems, by WESTERN CULTURE habit, to be overshadowed by continuous repetition of pictures of climbers clustering around the summits.  Transformation, which is nonlocal and implicit thus seems to be overshadowed by a focus on the local and explicit.  The abstraction of the local and explicit is capturable with great visual acuity while transformation is the effective reality that vision can only infer. Our WESTERN CULTURE cultivates a confusing habit of substituting the explicit for the implicit in language-based reality construction.

* * *

 

Capturing our sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum lies beyond the capability of language and grammar.  The best we can do with language is to use it to construct mental representations that ALLUDE TO or INFER the fluid relational reality that lies intrinsically beyond the reach of language.   In other words, since our sensory experience of inclusion in the Wave-field aka the Tao is INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT (that is the nature of the Wave-field aka ‘the Tao’), … are constrained, by the limitations of language, to use language based representations to INFER the fluid reality that lies beyond EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT basics of language.

This note reviews this challenge of using language to ‘effable-ize the ineffable sensory experience of inclusion in the transforming relational continuum aka the Wave-field aka ‘the Tao’.

I am using language to share these thoughts, and our WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENT language-based mode of representation has its limits that ‘show up’ in shortfalls in our ability to share sensory experience via language-based representations.  Understanding the architecture associated with the reductions of sensory experience that we are forced to make in order to articulate even a REDUCED REPRESENTATION of such experience is non-trivial because the unabridged sensory experience is always out there beyond the reach of words.  We can only make INFERENCE to the INEFFABLE-because-NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT by way our language being based on the EFFABLE-because-LOCAL-and-EXPLICIT.  Sometimes we make very crude representational reductions of reality to share our experience and other times we make less crude representational reductions.

For example, we use very little experience grounded information in speaking in the visual imagery based terms of ‘the BIG DIPPER’, and use relatively more experiential grounding when we put words together to try to capture something as ‘connected’ and mobile as a CLUSTER of gnats or fruit-flies.  The following is a brief review and deconstruction of our tactics for visually representing, or rather, trying to visually represent, fluid reality.  The aim of this review is to point out the psychological confusion that can come with it.

* * *

There are three basic interfaces here which can to distinguished by the following class labels;

TITBAs: Things-in-themselves-by-APPEARANCE based on FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO: examples included ‘the Big Dipper’ which is a form based on OUR psychological ‘connecting of the dots’ that have very little to do with one another.

TITBOs: Things-in-themselves-by-ORGANIZATION based on FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO: examples include ‘the CLUSTERING’ of fruit flies or small insects forming ‘clouds’ which vary from smaller and more dense to larger and less dense while retaining their same population of constituents.

RAFs: Relational association FORMINGS which are NONLOCAL-and-IMPLICIT wherein FIGURE-and-GROUND-are-ONE: examples include storming formings such as hurricaning and convecting currents which do NOT depend on the abstract (DOUBLE ERROR based) concept of LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES with their own (GRAMMAR-given) powers of SOURCING actions and developments that characterizes FIGURE-and-GROUND-as-TWO conceptualization.

(more…)